[Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#835273: Bug#835273: Bug#835273: fonts-liberation: Liberation 2 fonts poorly hinted

[Fabian Greffrath]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi all!

Am Donnerstag, den 25.08.2016, 01:11 +1200 schrieb Ben Caradoc-Davies:
> > > Fedora 25 is still scheduled to use Liberation 1.

I didn't even know (or maybe simply forgot) that Fedora reverted back
to using Liberation 1.x for quality concerns. If this is still the
case, as you state it, we should maybe follow suit and simply re-upload 
the previous package as 1:1.07.4-2 (i.e. with an epoch).

> I think this was a sensible decision as the new SIL licence and extra 
> glyphs do not in my view compensate for the loss of decent hinting. 
> Liberation 1 was a magnificent achievement and is still a good choice 
> today. It is by no means obsolete. I am yet to find another open source 
> font family that is as readable and versatile and also plays nicely with 
> > fontconfig.

The Google CrOS Core Fonts in the fonts-croscore package are mostly the
same as the Liberation 2.x fonts with changed names. It would be
interesting if you could provide a critical review with regard to
hinting. I myself seem to be mostly blind to such subtle details. :/

> Perhaps a fonts-liberation1 and fonts-liberation2 that "Breaks:" each 
> other and both provide the same virtual package? Ideally the virtual 
> package would be called fonts-liberation, but this is taken by the 
> current non-virtual package. I do not know the cleanest way to handle a 
> transition from a non-virtual to a virtual package. This might require 
> the advice of an apt guru.

We could still have both font versions in separate packages with
slightly different names and simple Breaks relations. No virtual
packages and Apt Voodoo required.

> Splitting out the condensed (I think they call it narrow?) font might be 
> unnecessary complexity at this stage.

If we re-introduced fonts-liberation 1.x with a different package name,
we'd have to pass the NEW queue again, anyway. So, splitting the
condensed style into a separate package would be no problem.

Thanks for your comments!

 - Fabian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=BY70
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----